Olympus 9-18 - worth adding if you own 12-32 ?

[cdmicha]

Just trying to justify buying it as my main walkabout lens is the 12-32.
Is the extra 3mm really noticeable ?

Very. Every extra mm you can get with a wide angle lens is huge. Unless you're in a hurry to purchase, keep an eye on deals, because I was able to snag an "excellent plus" P7-14 on KEH earlier this year for around $450. I'd only recommend the P7-14 though if you shoot Panasonic.

But if you want to always have the 12-32 with you, a 7-14 lens would be more complementary.

I agree 100%. I think the two main downsides to the O9-18 are aperture and the focal range doesn't really compliment any other lenses out there. However, it's still a great lens and had I not found the 7-14 at such a good price, I'd likely picked up the 9-18. With that said, I really enjoy walking around with the 7-14, and throwing the 12-32 in a pocket "just in case" is no big deal.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

I'd personally go either really wide with a prime and them middle with the zoom (Laowa 7.5/2 and P12-32) or go UWA zoom and a middle prime (O9-18/4-5.6 or P7-14/4 and O25/1.8, sigma 30/1.4, Mitakon 25/0.95). You'll cover most of what you want. The trick is getting the most convenience in what you'll use the most. for me that has historically been the wide to medium zoom...which I then compliment the wider angle with the 7mm prime.

 

[archaeopteryx]

At 12 mm that will give you a stitched image at approximately a 10 mm focal length at a 3:2 ratio.

As something of an aside, it might be good to look more closely at the maths. Doubling up the 59 x 74 degrees AoV of a 12mm gives 118 x 74 degrees, which is equivalent to 5.5 mm on the long axis and 9 mm on the short (for an m43 sensor). There isn't an exact equivalent of this with a single image from a 3:2 sensor as rotating the camera to stitch places images onto a cylinder rather than a rectilinear projection from a wider lens. As a 3:2 example, 7.0mm on 1.5x APS-C yields 118 x 96 degrees rather than 74 degrees and 10.4mm APS-C is 97 x 74 degrees.

For an approximate diagonal equivalent one might take the angular midpoint of that APS-C interval---about 8.4mm---and convert it to an m43 focal length with the usual short side crop factors of 1.5 and 2 to get 6.3mm. Alternatively, using m43's long side crop factor of 1.8 gives 7.1mm. Another method, neglecting the aspect ratio change by matching the diagonal angle of view, comes in at 6.7mm. One can other different flavours of these maths. But substantial changes are required to put the m43 estimate to 10mm.

It seems to me perhaps the most useful way of thinking about this is stitching 12s is likely to feel wider than 9 in a compositional sense. For me it's analogous to defishing (partly because I use Hugin for both) and, in the three images with 50% overlap case, is also reminiscent of 7 but without the fuss over rectilinear perspective distortion at the edges of the frame. My phone is a bit longer than 12mm (m43 equivalent) and panos in the vertical orientation, unlike the G7 (which has only horizontal panos). So mostly I stitch with it and only use an ILC for single frame UWA. Have been meaning to try stitching M and H bursts and 4k frame extraction as ways of getting more rapid camera rotation and reduced potential for subject motion.

 

[Bushboy]

Two shots in portrait orientation side-by-side, and a third in the middle overlapping half of each of the first two images. At 12 mm that will give you a stitched image at approximately a 10 mm focal length at a 3:2 ratio.

Thank you, I would never, have come up with that way of stitching pics together! I will give this a go. I do quite a bit of stitching with pics. Love it

 

[Holoholo55]

One valid complaint is that the recommended hood, the square-cut LH-55B, doesn’t reverse for storage. Fortunately, the petal hood for the O12-50, the LH-55C, also fits the O9-18, doesn’t vignette and reverses for storage. Easier to find, too.

Really, the LH-55C doesn't vignette? I'll have to look for one.

 

[Alexlotl]

Really, the LH-55C doesn't vignette? I'll have to look for one.

Yup, take a look here: Lens hood - Oly 9-18mm - reverse mount

First read about this on some Japanese blogs. Used the LH-55C on my lens all holiday and didn’t notice any issues. Most UWAs seem to use a petal lens, it’s the square cut of the 55B that’s unusual.

 

[ArcticaMT6]

Had the 9-18mm, didn't like it, sold it. Nowhere near wide enough for me, and the performance wasn't great. One of the 7-14mm lenses would be better, but cost a bit more. I paid $500 for my P7-14mm. I've also since picked up the 8mm pro 1.8.

 

[Oldwino]

The 9-18 is, like he 12-32, a better lens than it “ought” to be. The image quality is surprisingly good, and it’s light and compact.
The 9-18 plus a faster 25mm prime would make a good, lightweight combo for city photography.

 

[snaimpally]

I have both the P 12-32 and the O 9-18mm and use both of them. I love the compactness of the 12-32mm, especially on the GM1. The 9-18mm is also quite compact and gives you the extra wide angle when you needed. It is nice that the two lenses have an overlapping range because, once attached, I usually just keep the 9-18mm on the camera unless I have a need to zoom in further. When photographing wide vistas like a sunset etc., I always reach for the 9-18mm. The only thing that annoys me about it is the locking mechanism, which you have to fiddle with when opening or closing the lens.

 

[pdk42]

I've had two copies of the 9-18 in my m43 career. My views:

Plus points:
- For the money it's a very good lens. IQ is more than adequate.
- Weight and size are superb.
- Collapsing design is a big plus IMHO.
- Takes filters.

Negative points:
- Although IQ is very good, it never gets completely sharp in the corners, no matter how much you stop it down.
- 9mm is wide, but not truly super-wide. If you're a UWA fan, then you'll want 8mm or ideally 7mm.

My UWA is now the 8-18 which is notably better optically, but it's bigger, more expensive and not 7mm. The Oly 7-14 is great optically, but it's big and doesn't take filters. Choose your poison!

 

[StephenB]

I've had two copies of the 9-18 in my m43 career. My views:

Plus points:
- For the money it's a very good lens. IQ is more than adequate.
- Weight and size are superb.
- Collapsing design is a big plus IMHO.
- Takes filters.

Negative points:
- Although IQ is very good, it never gets completely sharp in the corners, no matter how much you stop it down.
- 9mm is wide, but not truly super-wide. If you're a UWA fan, then you'll want 8mm or ideally 7mm.

My UWA is now the 8-18 which is notably better optically, but it's bigger, more expensive and not 7mm. The Oly 7-14 is great optically, but it's big and doesn't take filters. Choose your poison!

I use an original 4/3 9-18 with a MMF-3 adapter, I'm pretty pleased with the IQ, but then I'm no expert. Do you know how the 4/3 compares to the m4/3?

 

[Glawsder]

Don't understand the issues with the locking mechanism, it isn't a problem.

I have a locking Oly 14-42 and have never missed a shot because I couldn't open it in time. I also have the Panasonic 12 32 and I can never get the little blighter off the camera without it zooming and that really annoys me.

If only the 12 32 had a lock or the Oly was 2mm wider

 

[Turbofrog]

I've had two copies of the 9-18 in my m43 career. My views:

Plus points:
- For the money it's a very good lens. IQ is more than adequate.
- Weight and size are superb.
- Collapsing design is a big plus IMHO.
- Takes filters.

Negative points:
- Although IQ is very good, it never gets completely sharp in the corners, no matter how much you stop it down.
- 9mm is wide, but not truly super-wide. If you're a UWA fan, then you'll want 8mm or ideally 7mm.

My UWA is now the 8-18 which is notably better optically, but it's bigger, more expensive and not 7mm. The Oly 7-14 is great optically, but it's big and doesn't take filters. Choose your poison!

The Panasonic 7-14 doesn't really get any attention these days now that it's been outshined by two newer pro lenses with their own unique selling propositions (weather sealing, filters, f2.8 apertures), but optically it's just as good as either of them, goes to 7mm, and is substantially lighter than the PRO, and because of the lack of hype, you can now find it for $500-600, or even less.

I think it fell off the radar mainly because the "purple flare" problem happened to interact badly with the E-M5, likely the most popular M4/3 body of all time. I wonder if it is still an issue on modern Olympus bodies...

 

[RAH]

Yes, I think if I were to buy a 7mm UW, I'd go for the Pany 7-14. I'm just too crazy about the small size and wide-enough qualities of the m43 9-18 to switch. I have picked my poison!

 

[Michael Meissner]

I think it fell off the radar mainly because the "purple flare" problem happened to interact badly with the E-M5, likely the most popular M4/3 body of all time. I wonder if it is still an issue on modern Olympus bodies...

It depends on what you mean by modern. The E-m5 markII, E-m10 mark II/III and Pen E-PL8/9 all use the Sony 16MP sensor that many people attributed to the purple flare problem. The Pen-F and E-m1 mark II use a 20MP sensor (I'm not sure if they are the same sensor or different).

 

[Turbofrog]

It depends on what you mean by modern. The E-m5 markII, E-m10 mark II/III and Pen E-PL8/9 all use the Sony 16MP sensor that many people attributed to the purple flare problem. The Pen-F and E-m1 mark II use a 20MP sensor (I'm not sure if they are the same sensor or different).

I would specifically say that the E-M5 II, E-M10 II/III, PEN E-PL8/9, GX85, and G85 do not use modern sensors. Those sensors are 5-6 years old, relatively ancient in the world of technology.

Even the GX8 and PEN-F (IMX 269) can no longer be considered to have modern sensors, with that model having debuted 3.5 years ago.

Micro Four Thirds has a real market positioning problem because they refuse to trickle down their sensor technologies as other manufacturers seem to be willing to do. Even Canon - the master or arbitrary market divisions - seems to have decided to standardize all their APS-C cameras on the same (moderate performance) 24MP sensor.

I just hope we can see the IMX272 (a la the GH5 and G9) in a $900-1000 body this year.

 

[Mike Wingate]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I do not make enough use of my P7-14mm lens on my GX80. But when I do, I am happy. I was also using this lens indoors mounted on my monopod.

 

[tkbslc]

I know stitching doesn't work for some shots, but it works great for a lot of them. Turn your 12mm into portrait orientation and take a 3-4 shot panorama, and you are at least as wide as 9mm (likely much wider depending on overlap).

I consider the 9-18mm to be significantly overpriced given the mediocre performance and slow aperture. Lenses like that are under $300 from Canon and Nikon.

 

[RAH]

I agree that the m43 9-18 is overpriced. I recommend getting it used (got mine for $410).

 

[PeeBee]

I agree that the m43 9-18 is overpriced. I recommend getting it used (got mine for $410).

I paid $335 (£262) for mine, brand new (with 2 year warranty), over the counter at a bricks and mortar camera store.